Sanford Speaks Out is the latest blog sensation written, edited and produced by Sanford D. Horn, a writer and educator. Sanford will write about issues of the day covering a myriad subjects: politics, education, culture, sports, religion and even food.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Here’s an obvious, yet little mentioned irony: we the
people elect our fellow citizens to be lawmakers, yet once they reach the
vaunted halls of Congress, they become lawbreakers.

This is not hyperbole. With the new illegal immigration
amnesty bill passing the Senate, and 14 Republicans complicit in the
law-breaking supported by the full force of the Democrats – they will send the
bill that will grant a path to citizenship to roughly 20 million illegals who
have invaded our borders to the House. Don’t let the government lull you into a
false sense of security by thinking the number of illegals is “only” 11
million.

Lest we forget the disaster that was the 1986 amnesty
under former President Ronald Reagan, still one of my three political heroes,
granting a “mere” three million illegal aliens rights and eventual citizenship.
That never did stem the tide of illegals invading the United States, because a
sieve-like border will remain as such until it is CLOSED.

Where are the priorities of the elected officials,
elected to protect and defend the United States and its borders? The passage of
another weak-kneed amnesty bill will further wreck the fabric of this nation,
driving it further from the image portrayed and presented by the Founding
Fathers.

The answer is that both major political parties are
fecklessly in the pockets of either the Hispanics or the business lobby. For
the most part, the GOP sees cheap labor while Democrats see upwards of 20
million additional voters joining their ranks, further indebting the United
States as more and more indigents suck from the teat that is government. More
people on Medicaid, paid for by the taxpayers; more people living in Section 8
housing, paid for by the taxpayers; more students crowding into the already
failing public school system, paid for by the taxpayers; more people on welfare
and food stamps, paid for by the taxpayers. With a $17 trillion dollar debt,
the US citizenry can ill afford to legalize millions of more people to be on
the dole and the precipice of poverty.

But who suffers most with the legalization of those who
broke the law illegally entering the United States? Those already on the bottom
rungs of the socio-economic ladder – historically blacks, American Indians, and
Hispanics. Amazingly, these constituencies vote in lock-step for the Democrats
without realizing if the Democrats get their way, these low-income workers will
have to fight even harder for jobs, thus relegating them to the government
plantation for yet another generation.

Instead of rewarding illegals with entitlements, stop
cutting veterans’ benefits. Give those men and women their due – they gave
their all and then some to defend our rights and freedoms. They deserve more
than they already get in terms of respect for their government, their Commander
in Chief and less hassle getting the medical aid they need for physical and
mental ailments as well as the ability to pay in-state tuition in any state
they wish for serving all citizens in all 50 states.

I subscribe to the Tom Tancredo philosophy on illegal
immigration – deportation. Simple concept, virtually impossible to enact and
enforce, which I recognize. (Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, served honorably
in Congress, prior to running for and being defeated for governor of the
Centennial State. He entered several primaries for president in 2008.) Barring
that, a plan for self-deportation must be put in place. Deny all illegal
invaders ANY government entitlement and/or benefit. Just shut them down. Unless
they can prove they are here in the United States legally, they get nothing. If
they get nothing, they will either leave, or worse yet, turn to crime to
survive. Many illegals have already turned to crime – beyond the act of
illegally crossing the border – and still have the privilege of remaining in
this country.

For those who will label me a racist for wanting to deport
or deny, I don’t care. I don’t care because I am not a racist for wanting the
rule of law to be followed and enforced. Police and ICE agents around the
country are being ordered to look the other way, and that is wrong and
criminal. I also don’t care, because I did not ask those here illegally to come
here in the first place.

Yes, many people come here because of repressive regimes
in their homelands – so did the Pilgrims. But there are laws in this country,
and they must be followed. Yes, the children of those illegal aliens did not
choose to come here, and we are a nation with a heart; sometimes too big of a
heart for our own good, and this is one of those times.

But the time to shut off the spigot is now. The time to
enforce the laws is now. The time to seal the borders is now. Build the fence –
now, high, and far, and yes, even electric. There are severe penalties for
those who are caught sneaking into other countries – even Mexico, which has a
southern border sealed like a drum – as it should be – in all countries.

Once the border fences are built, and the borders are
genuinely secured, only then should applications for legal immigration be
accepted – including from those here illegally. Those here illegally would need
to self-deport to their country of origin, apply with the caveat of admitting
their illegal status with fines and penalties and under the provision they may
never earn citizenship or voting rights, but instead a legal status to permit
them to work and pay taxes as new legal residents. They will also be denied
entitlements as part of their penalty.

Any illegal alien caught after that time will be
automatically photographed, fingerprinted, put in a database, and deported with
no future allowance of reentry in the United States.

No student visas will be granted to anyone from a country
voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the time in the United
Nations. Any student granted the privilege of a student visa will be
photographed (already required) and fingerprinted so they can be tracked as
they are guests in this country. Overstay your guest privileges and deportation
with no change of return will be imposed. Any questions? See September 11,
2001.

Students already here illegally, whether by their own
volition or their parents’ illegal actions, should never be allowed to pay
in-state tuition, nor qualify for scholarship funds. The DREAM Act is a
nightmare that will cost the taxpaying citizens more money they should not have
to pay.

No application for immigration will be granted to anyone
from a country voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the
time in the United Nations. Clearly these are countries not supportive of the
United States and their citizens should be denied privileges in this country. No
law says the US must grant entrance to anyone, let alone someone from an
unfriendly country. Any questions? See September 11, 2001.

Any immigration application accepted will be done so on a
probationary basis of three to five years. Commit a crime, go to jail, and then
go back to your country of origin with no chance of return. Immigration to the
United States is a privilege, not a right.

During the height of the eastern and southern European
immigration to the United States from the 1880s to 1920, immigrants were expected
to have sponsors, promise of employment, and be cleared upon entry with a clean
bill of health. There is no reason why those rules can’t once again be imposed.

In those days, new immigrants worked because there was no
promise of welfare, food stamps or government assistance. If they needed help,
they procured it from family, friends, or faith-based organizations such as a
church or synagogue. New immigrants took pride in learning English and turning
the United States into a melting pot.

Today it is just the opposite. There is no melting pot,
not demands to have jobs, learn English, or not turn to government assistance.
Today, the United States is becoming more and more balkanized with ethnic
groups clinging to their home countries and attempting to turn their
neighborhoods into modern day shtetls.

That is simply unacceptable. Come to the United States
legally and with the promise of making this country a better place. If not, do
not come to the United States to turn this country into the cesspools you
abandoned without attempting to make them better places. If you come to the
United States and burn our flag and salute that of another nation, you are in
the wrong country.

Not only is this bill irresponsible, but to suggest that
a 1,190-page behemoth, laden with more lard than a pig farm, be read in 72
hours by the members, is also irresponsible.

As for those members of Congress – both houses – heed
these messages or you will find yourselves out of jobs – Democrat and
Republican alike.

Monday, June 24, 2013

I’ve been wrestling with the issue of whether Edward
Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) information leaker, is a
hero or a zero; a patriot or a traitor.

As more and more information comes to the forefront the
challenge to define becomes no less murky. But, as we are judged by the company
we keep, Snowden’s behavior itself has tipped the scales for me.

I am Constitutional Conservative (using capital “Cs” as
it may one day become a political party replacing the floundering GOP). As
such, I am critical of government, all three branches and both major parties,
for its constant violation of the document that is the glue holding together
the republic.

Thus the challenge in assessing the actions of Snowden,
29, charged with violation of the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking material
pertaining to NSA surveillance activities, a charge which carries a maximum of
a 10-year prison term. Additionally, Snowden, who worked for Booz Allen
Hamilton, a Virginia-based government contractor, has been charged with the
theft and conversion of government property.

Upon leaking the classified information, including how
the US government conducts surveillance of potential terrorists, which also
includes monitoring of American citizens’ phone conversations and e-mail correspondence,
a firestorm of debate ensued.

Is Snowden a hero for unearthing material illustrating
Americans are the victims of government surveillance? Or is Snowden a traitor
for providing the enemies of the United States knowledge that they are under
government surveillance and giving them the opportunity to change their
communication methods?

Clearly there is a Fourth Amendment issue at work here.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (US Constitution, Amendment
IV)

“Houses, papers, and effects…” could include telephones, which are presumably inside one’s home, could include e-mail, which without the
advanced technology of computers would probably be written correspondence, thus
making phone and e-mail protected from a warrantless search as the Founding Fathers
could in no way predicted such technological advancements.

On the other hand, a strict Constitutionalist might suggest,
since phone and e-mail are not included in the “houses, papers, and effects…”
portion of the Fourth Amendment, they are not protected from a warrantless search,
thus giving government free reign to listen to phone conversations and read
e-mails.

However, the caveat of “probable cause,” gives government
a grand amount of leeway to conduct such searches of phone records, e-mails, as
well as the ability to listen to conversations of people deemed a national security
risk, also a term that can be loosely defined to fit virtually any instance.

For years, thousands upon thousands, if not millions upon
millions of people have had phone conversations monitored, and more recently
e-mails, under the scope of national security much to our own ignorance.

I must add that as a journalist, not just an opinion
writer, I am always an American first and a journalist second when it comes to
the dissemination of secure data. We the people really don’t need to know
everything coming out of Washington or our various state capitals. Let the
behind the scenes work of how we the people are protected remain there for our
perpetual safety.

Without our national security, without the ability to
conduct surveillance of our enemies in an unfettered manner, we have no hope of
freedom. My ability to be free does not hinge upon whether the government listens
to my conversation with a friend about the latest Mets game or about for whom I
will vote in the next election. In fact, the First Amendment gives us the right
to say what is on our minds, save for the incitement of violence, which, one
may assume includes the overthrow of the country and government.

If Edward Snowden believed what he did was right, moral,
and righteous, he would not have fled to Hong Kong, a territory of China – not exactly
a friend of the United States. He knew he was revealing more than just
information about government surveillance of citizens’ phone conversations and
e-mails. Snowden leaked vital information pertaining to the thwarting of up to
50 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Snowden, who said he would not voluntarily return to the
United States, clearly fears what he did was inconsistent, if not treasonous,
within the framework of giving aid and comfort to the enemyby revealing government tactics in the surveillance
of enemies foreign and domestic. Instead, he tucked his tail between his legs
and slithered away like the coward he is. His flight is tantamount to an
admission of guilt.

As for asylum being sought elsewhere, be it Russia, Cuba,
Ecuador, or anywhere else, the government of the United States had better make
it clear, that to not extradite Snowden, is akin to harboring a fugitive from
American justice and action must be taken. If financial aid is provided to the
country granting Snowden safe harbor, it should be denied.

And as mentioned above, Snowden can be judged by the
company he keeps – the Chinese, the Russians, possibly the Cubans, possibly the
Ecuadorians – all nations at odds with the United States. Additionally, Snowden
has received a pledge of assistance from Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks,
the anti-secrecy group also charged with acting contrary to the best interest
of the United States.

Even Snowden’s father, Lonnie Snowden, who served his
country for 30 years in the US Coast Guard, wants his son to return home and
not reveal any more damaging information. “I hope, I pray, and I ask that you
will not release any secrets that could constitute treason,” said Lonnie Snowden
in an interview airing on Fox News, June 18.

Additionally, Assange’s attorney admitted Snowden’s
options were limited. “You have to have a country that’s going to stand up to
the United States. You’re not talking about a huge range of countries here,”
said Michael Ratner. (Philip Elliott, Associated Press)

Snowden himself is merely a symptom to a greater concern –
how many people should have security clearances in the first place? How many people
should have access to the top echelon data? Snowden already admitted releasing
information to people not qualified to have it in the first place – seems an
act going against the better interest of the United States.

Were Snowden genuinely concerned about American citizens’
Fourth Amendment rights, he could have spoken privately to the appropriate
government agencies to demonstrate how easy it was for him to access the
material he came to possess without leaking secrets damaging the manner in
which the NSA conducts its covert affairs.

Snowden “attempted to make a political point by leaking
several documents that have seriously harmed America’s ability to identify and
respond to terrorist threats,” wrote US Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), in The Indianapolis Star (June 19, 2013).

Coats asked NSA Director Gen. Keith B. Alexander what the
consequences of Snowden’s leak are during a Senate hearing. “If we tell
terrorists every way we track them, they will get through, and people will die,”
said Alexander. (Indy Star)

Coats further defended the NSA by reminding the people how
after September 11, 2001 there were demands to “connect the dots” in an effort
to thwart terrorist plots. And while the government does not have the unilateral
authority to eavesdrop on citizens’ phone calls or read their e-mails,
foreigners have no expectation of such protection.

Coats correctly called Snowden a “grandstander” who
clearly does not have the best interest of the United States at heart. Like the
notion of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the US needs to tighten
the reins on who has clearance while strengthening the ability to prevent
future terrorist acts.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

For Shamus Patton freedom after three years of an eight
year sentence is as criminal as he is. To serve less than 40 percent of a
prison term is more than “disturbing” as indicated by the June 21, page one
headline, “Felon’s Case ‘Disturbing’” (The
Indianapolis Star).

The new law passed during the past legislative session is
marginally better, but still miles from where it ought to be. The General
Assembly enacted a law requiring convicts to serve a minimum of 75 percent of
their sentence, even with good behavior and completion of certain programs.

Patton was sentenced to eight years for shooting nine
people at the Indiana Black Expo in 2010. Fast forward three years, and Patton
is on the streets having a reduced sentence for good behavior and competing an
educational program. Apparently Patton learned nothing, arrested for resisting
police, while in the company of three other convicts and firearms.

So many aspects of the Patton case and new law are pathetically
wrong, endangering the community at-large, from a lack of communication between
prison and local authorities, to the dumb luck that Patton should return to his
miscreant cohorts for additional illicit activity – evidencing his need to
remain behind bars.

The focus must be on sentencing laws. Patton is merely a
symptom of the need to tighten them. An eight year sentence should be just that
– eight years behind bars. With good behavior and completion of certain
programs, a prisoner could be released in eight years. With bad behavior and non-compliance,
the sentence should be increased.

“I think serving 75 percent of a sentence, rather than
just 50 percent should still be enough of an incentive for prisoners to follow
the rules,” said Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington).

Pierce and others supporting this bill, now law, don’t
understand – this is not about the incentives for convicts to behave behind
bars, but the enforcement of a sentence handed down by a judge and jury. It should
start with 100 percent and the incentive for prisoners to follow the rules is
that every act of bad behavior or defiance is tacked on to the sentence on a
2:1 ratio – two additional days per incident.

Criminals should not be rewarded with early release.
While they are entitled to justice under the law, it should not be by heaping
insult to injury upon the victims.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Convergent forces saw the passing of former President
Ronald Reagan, nine years ago yesterday (06/05/04), with the annual observance of
D-Day, today 69 years removed from its June 6, 1944 landing on the shores of
Normandy, France.

In his D-Day message, General Dwight Eisenhower said “We
will accept nothing less than full victory.” Words of this strength have hardly
been uttered during any war or conflict since, in which the United States has participated.

The landing at Omaha Beach and four other locales over a
50 mile span was the beginning of the end of the European segment of World War
II. On this date 156,000-plus American, British, and Canadian troops hit hard
the shores of those five beaches – initially suffering unprecedented casualties
prior to wresting control from Nazi Germany.

Over 5,000 ships and 13,000 aircraft participated in the
invasion where more than 4,000 Allied soldiers were killed and another 5,000
were wounded within the immediacy of the landings. This was a heavy price to
pay, but was the turning point in defeating Hitler, Nazism, and Fascism.

“The free men of the world are marching together to
victory,” Eisenhower continued in his D-Day message.

From the time of the D-Day landing through late August
1944, the Allied troops liberated northern France, including Paris. By May
1945, the Allies defeated Nazi Germany and the Axis powers of Europe.

Drafted into the Army shortly after the United States
entered the war in December 1941, Reagan was not permitted to the front lines
due to his near-sightedness. Instead, Reagan worked for the Motion Picture Army
Unit producing training and propaganda films. For my impressions of Ronald
Reagan: http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2004/06/mourning-in-america.html

“…let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty G-d upon this
great and noble undertaking,” concluded General Eisenhower’s D-Day message.

Eisenhower understood then, what many have since
forgotten: that short of a belief in G-d and striving for total victory,
military conflicts are merely an exercise in futility costing the United States
an unnecessary loss of blood, treasure, and human capital.

May we and future generations never forget the sacrifices
made by the brave soldiers on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and may the losses of those
who made the ultimate sacrifice not have been in vain.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

On May 22, British soldier Lee Rigby, 25, was beheaded in
broad daylight in London by two radicalized British Muslims, one of whom
shouted Allah akbar (G-d is great). Both murderers were shot by a British
policewoman as their act was immediately called terrorism. Rigby is survived by
his two-year-old son.

Three days later, French soldier Private Cedric Cordiez,
also 25, was stabbed in the neck by a convert to Islam. The attacker was
arrested, while Cordiez survived the assault – an act called terrorism, was
treated and released.

Flashback to November 5, 2009 where at Fort Hood, TX,
Army Major Nidal Hasan, while shouting “Allah akbar,” opened fire slaughtering
13 innocent people – colleagues – and wounding another 32 innocents. This
unquestionable act of premeditated terror was labeled “workplace violence” by
the Pentagon on the directive of a feckless Obama administration.

This is not new news that Hasan has been charged with
workplace violence instead of the obvious charge of terrorism, which is exactly
what Hasan committed. But on the eve of the advent of jury selection in Hasan’s
trial, it bears noting that this case should be tried in a military tribunal as
opposed to the civilian court where it will be heard.

This entire case stinks from the top down. During the
three and a half years of incarceration, Hasan has been paid his salary in full
– to the tune of $278,000, vastly unknown to the taxpaying public who has foot
this unconscionable bill. But, as Hasan has yet to be tried or found guilty, he
apparently is entitled to his compensation, although he did absolutely nothing
to earn it.

An additional obscenity in the Hasan case is that he has
been granted permission to defend himself, with the presence of backup
attorneys should the need arise. The only plus here is that Hasan has been
declared sane in order to defend himself, and guilty by reason of insanity is
out as a defense. Clearly the old adage of “he who defends himself has a fool
for a client,” applies here.

The flip side of this travesty is that the surviving
wounded victims can be called to the stand to be questioned by Hasan and forced
to relieve that horrific day one more time, as if they already don’t relive it
every day.

Furthermore, while Hasan is collecting his full salary,
the wounded have not had the same access to medical care or benefits had this
rampage been declared terrorism, as it should have been declared. And because of
the workplace violence label, the living wounded victims and the 13 who were
murdered will be unable to receive the Purple Heart, either live or
posthumously. Shockingly, the Defense Department said there is not enough evidence to call Hasan's heinous actions terrorism, yet it was Hasan himself who said the shootings were to protect the Taliban. Apparently the DOD can't see the forest for the trees.

In being tried in a civilian court, Hasan will be granted
a forum to pontificate in ways that are linked to his defense, which due to all
the witnesses, should not amount to much, but the show must go on, as they say
on Broadway.

Bright lights and big city or not, Hasan, 42, an Army
psychiatrist, made his objections to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan well-known
as well as his animus toward his comrades. For this, the trial should be an
open and shut case with the penalty being either life in prison or the death
penalty.

But the trial is merely a symptom of a bigger problem,
that being the mollifying of radical Muslims who seem to get a pass at every
turn and rights not afford other groups or protections not afforded other
groups.

A couple examples of this include workers making demands
of employers to not fulfill certain aspects of the job for which they were
hired because they might violate their religious beliefs, and punishing people
for potentially offending Muslims, when the same offenses of other religious groups
are allowed to occur unpunished.

There is a double standard growing in the United States
simply because there is an administration sympathetic to the cause of radical
Islam. This administration turns a blind eye and a deaf ear in an effort to
placate the Muslim community to which this administration seem beholden.

Well, blind eyes and deaf ears will not be found here and
we will be paying attention to the Hasan trial with the hopes that 12 men and
women will do their jobs, find this terrorist guilty of workplace violence and
sentence him to death.

The Obama administration can call this workplace violence
all day long, but at the end of that long day, we the people know the truth –
Nidal Hasan is a terrorist.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

Democrats Blame Victims of IRS

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 4, 2013

US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) is shameless and feckless
for the manner in which he denigrated witnesses who testified before the House
Ways and Means Committee about the treatment they endured by a biased IRS.

Adding insult to injury, McDermott told those patriots
brave enough to come forward that “each of your groups are highly political,”
and that they basically deserved the treatment dealt them by the IRS in their
quest to achieve 501(c)(4) status. Would McDermott and the other Democrats be
that insensitive to blame rape victims for their horrifying ordeals?

McDermott went on to chastise those testifying on Monday,
June 4, that they represent the “most controversial views,” including “opposing
the president’s health care plan.” The cherry-picked organizations are
conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-Israel, have TEA Party, patriot,
or liberty in their names and have been targets of the IRS throughout the Obama
administration.

McDermott dug himself in deeper when suggesting the
conservative groups have nothing about which to complain as the head of the IRS
was a George W. Bush appointee. “If you didn’t apply for this status, you
wouldn’t have to answer questions,” chided McDermott, clearly never having read
Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends &
Influence People.

US Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) took McDermott to task when he
sarcastically said to the witnesses, “So you’re to blame…,” adding, “I guess
that’s the message.”

One such witness to testify was Wetumpka, AL TEA Party
president Becky Gerritson who fought tears in describing the harassing experience
hers and other organizations faced in attempts to achieve tax exempt status.
Targeted groups, if granted a tax-exempt status at all, waited an average of
635 days, while groups not discriminated against, such as Planned Parenthood
and the ACLU, achieved their tax-exempt status in roughly 90 days.

“You have forgotten your place,” said Gerritson of the
IRS and government in general. She continued to explain how they were singled out
because they have TEA Party in their name. “This was not an accident, but an
attempt to intimidate us,” said Gerritson, who told of how the IRS demanded
names of donors, how much the donors contributed, names of volunteers, names of
potential candidates, positions advocated by the group, copies of speeches, and
biographical data on speakers.

None of those investigations are kosher. Those lines of
questioning are “outside legitimate inquiry,” said American Center for Law and
Justice attorney Jay Sekulow, defending 25 such victims of IRS bias, harassment,
and intimidation.

Gerritson concluded her testimony telling the committee
she is “terrified” the America she grew up in “is slipping away.”

The inquisition offered up by the IRS is designed to
squelch dissent. The Constitution both encourages and protects dissent. When
there is no dissent, government is unchecked and when government is unchecked,
there is potential for tyranny.

We the people fund the government – it works for us, not
the other way around. The government owes the people explanations for its unscrupulous
actions, then punishments for its illegal acts.